I want to comment on this sentence right here. There is a bunch of implications while ignoring "status quo".
First, I find it ironic you are demonizing this judge by stating that he made himself a "national security expert", but that is exactly what Trump did early on with very little knowledge of any of this. Trump claimed he was smarter than our generals. So, while it will be tough to tell whether this judge is right or wrong with respect to what keeps us safe, to use what's trump has done against Trump as a negative is mind boggling to me.
Second, this judge didn't make him a "National Security Expert". What he did was believe that the president, who claims to be one, isn't one either. The judge didn't enact any laws or somehow rewrite any guidelines. He just put a stay on an executive order that brought our National Security back to what it was prior, or status quo. Had this judge removed some countries off of the list and somehow added different ones, then I could see your argument. All he did was say, "yeah, no, we are stopping this and going back to what was".
The judge made his ruling based on false info and passed it off as fact. He was no national security expert so why base a ruling on knowledge that he didn't have? Did he bother to ask the DOJ for those stats? No, and if he was paying attention to the news, he would have known about the Somali who attacked those people at OSU. His ruling was not only based on false information but it was based on emotion as well, given that he has a soft spot in his heart for refugees.
Trump ran on many campaign promises, and he's been making good on several of them. Yes, he was wrong for saying he knew more than the generals but any person knows that statement was more bravado than factual. Now, as president, he has access to intel that the judge does not. He knows things that he cannot say, and given that his powers as POTUS include the ability to ban anyone from anywhere who poses a threat to this country, for however long, are spelled out in the Constitution, what legal grounds did this judge have to halt the ban while the Trump admin work to implement a better vetting process? Why no lawsuits, protests, and court reversals when Obama and Carter did it?
Yes, this country is made of immigrants, but that's not the issue that the anti-Trump people insist for being the motive behind Trump's EO. It is an undisputed fact that there are ISIS terrorists among the refugee population that have come into western countries, and it should be common sense to delay the processing of those entries from those countries that do not have a proper vetting system in place until we can set up something better than letting the U.N. handle it.
If there is even one terrorist among the one hundred Syrian refugees who were allowed in during this halt to the temporary ban, will you blame Trump for it or will you blame the judges for their emotion-based rulings?